2017 was our 20th year online!

Welcome to the Piano World Piano Forums
Over 3 million posts about pianos, digital pianos, and all types of keyboard instruments.
Over 100,000 members from around the world.
Join the World's Largest Community of Piano Lovers (it's free)
It's Fun to Play the Piano ... Please Pass It On!

Shop our online store for music lovers
SEARCH
Piano Forums & Piano World
(ad)
Best of Piano Buyer
 Best of Piano Buyer
(ad)
Faust Harrison Pianos
Faust Harrison 100+ Steinway pianos
(ad)
Wessell Nickel & Gross
PianoForAll
Who's Online Now
78 members (c++, ambrozy, chaplincap, accordeur, AndrewJCW, brdwyguy, Almar, 18 invisible), 642 guests, and 585 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
(ad)
Estonia Pianos
Estonia Pianos
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Hop To
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3
Internal sounds vs. MIDI responsiveness
#2661700 07/15/17 05:41 PM
Joined: Aug 2015
Posts: 115
Full Member
OP Offline
Full Member
Joined: Aug 2015
Posts: 115
With respect to a digital piano, my focus is on the feeling of connectedness from the action to the sound.

I want to play an instrument that feels alive - regardless of the source of the timbral sound: model or sample.

My current impression is that a modeled sound *feels* more alive to me. I don't mean to say that it sounds objectively better... just that the responsive feeling is such that I'm able to coax greater timbral variation, I'm able to have a richer conversation with the instrument. I guess it feels more analog to me.

While this strong impression arose from playing a Roland FP-90, I'm still exploring other options (MP11, RD-2000).

And in so doing, I wondered if internal sounds might be intrinsically more responsive than those accessible via a MIDI interface.
Has anyone found that to be the case, or is it merely imagined by me?

I know that latency can be an issue, and can be managed. But beyond that for example, I don't believe there's a reason that a manufacturer must design internal sounds to conform only to the "0-127" velocity granularity that an external MIDI interface allows. (I'm not pretending that my technique is such that I could take advantage of more than that ... I'm using this as an illustration of potential differences between internal and external sounds).

And so, is there special sauce that a manufacturer applies to their internal sound engine as invoked by its instrument action that is not reachable by MIDI ?

*Something* made me say "WOW" out loud when I played the FP-90...
I'm curious if I'd be able to feel something similar with an external sound should I prefer the MP11 action after I try it.

Of course, I'll try it and listen and feel... but I'm curious if there's a known difference between internal and external "connectedness" ...

thanks so much.

Jack


Kawai MP11SE | K&M 18950 | Pianoteq Pro (Bleuthner, Steingraeber, Petrof, Bechstein, Steinway B & D, Electric Pianos, K) | Sennheiser HD600 | Sony WH-1000XM3 (using wired) for noise isolation
(ad)
Sweetwater Gifts That Rock
Re: Internal sounds vs. MIDI responsiveness
jackifus #2661708 07/15/17 06:25 PM
Joined: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,069
B
1000 Post Club Member
Offline
1000 Post Club Member
B
Joined: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,069
It all depends about interface (the keyboard/action), sound (for example, how many velocity layers for a sampled instrument, etc.) and what is in between (for example, the velocity map) which translates what comes out of the interface towards the sound engine. It's often possible to improve what the manufacturer offers as is, for example simply adjusting the "internal" parameters offered on the DP, otherwise using external MIDI data mapping devices. Also, some sounds are created with way less dynamic range than others, including sampled acoustic pianos, etc. I always choose digital instruments which offer maximum programmability, as I don't want to be stuck with just a dozen of adjustable parameters.

Re: Internal sounds vs. MIDI responsiveness
jackifus #2661743 07/15/17 10:23 PM
Joined: Dec 2012
Posts: 6,076
C
6000 Post Club Member
Offline
6000 Post Club Member
C
Joined: Dec 2012
Posts: 6,076
Quote
. . .
And so, is there special sauce that a manufacturer applies to their internal sound engine as invoked by its instrument action that is not reachable by MIDI ?


That's a well-formed question, and I think the answer is:

. . . "No."

There may be exceptions for some DP's. But for most of them, the link between the keyboard and sound generator is a list of MIDI events:

. . . <note-on / pitch / velocity > <note-off / pitch / velocity > . . . . .

(I don't know how many DP's transmit note-off velocity, but I know some do -- and for those, it makes a difference to their sound generators.)

I think that any maker who _did_ use "beyond MIDI" information would be very vocal about it.


. Charles
---------------------------
PX-350 / microKorg XL+ / Pianoteq
Re: Internal sounds vs. MIDI responsiveness
jackifus #2661758 07/16/17 12:37 AM
Joined: Aug 2015
Posts: 115
Full Member
OP Offline
Full Member
Joined: Aug 2015
Posts: 115
Quote
I think that any maker who _did_ use "beyond MIDI" information would be very vocal about it.


That's a great point. I appreciate it.


Kawai MP11SE | K&M 18950 | Pianoteq Pro (Bleuthner, Steingraeber, Petrof, Bechstein, Steinway B & D, Electric Pianos, K) | Sennheiser HD600 | Sony WH-1000XM3 (using wired) for noise isolation
Re: Internal sounds vs. MIDI responsiveness
jackifus #2661807 07/16/17 08:32 AM
Joined: Jun 2013
Posts: 3,520
P
3000 Post Club Member
Offline
3000 Post Club Member
P
Joined: Jun 2013
Posts: 3,520
I posted a similar question, but I used two different instruments for comparison.

Basically, I'm curious if the on-board sound of the Roland LX- 17 would be 'intrinsically' better connected to its action than the Novus used as a controller running Pianoteq.

Roland supposedly uses a scanner under the keys along with sensors that, I assume, have been finely tuned to control a sound engine specifically designed for the "Roland action."

While the Novus uses a grand action, it has not been optimized specifically for Pianoteq, so, does something potentially get lost in translation? Can we tweak the heck out of Pianoteq to make the connection to Novus seamless?

Maybe there exists a "special sauce" that goes beyond simple on/off events, or maybe not. It is a very subjective area. I suppose some will swear by their on-board sound (purely in terms of connectedness/playability), whilst others will find no difference at all running a virtual instrument.

Re: Internal sounds vs. MIDI responsiveness
jackifus #2661813 07/16/17 09:11 AM
Joined: Oct 2013
Posts: 2,962
2000 Post Club Member
Online Content
2000 Post Club Member
Joined: Oct 2013
Posts: 2,962
Using a dedicated chip to scan a keyboard is not new. According to the service manual of my circa 2002 Clavinova, I have one too. The purpose of this chip is just to measure the velocity. Creating 88 little counters on a chip is not that hard and can avoid too much load on the main CPU, and/or improve the resolution.

The tuning of the response could be done with a translation table in the Roland.

With Pianoteq, you can fine tune easily a key response. You put some point on a response curve and can set the intended velocity at any MIDI velocity number (with interpolation between theses points).


Yamaha CLP150, Bechstein Digital Grand, Garritan CFX, Ivory II pianos, Galaxy pianos, EWQL Pianos, Native-Instrument The Definitive Piano Collection, Soniccouture Hammersmith, Truekeys, Pianoteq
Re: Internal sounds vs. MIDI responsiveness
jackifus #2661833 07/16/17 10:09 AM
Joined: Jun 2013
Posts: 3,520
P
3000 Post Club Member
Offline
3000 Post Club Member
P
Joined: Jun 2013
Posts: 3,520
I understand that you can set the intended velocity at any MIDI velocity number (with interpolation between these points). I believe you can also emphasize specific overtones (unrelated to playability) using the spectrum profile, and so on........but the question is, is there something beyond these very 'advanced and scientific' notions (perhaps a special sauce) that when applied at the programming/factory level to the on-board sound engine could make a difference? Technically, I suppose the answer is no, but then again, what if there exists a secret recipe for the special sauce? smile







Re: Internal sounds vs. MIDI responsiveness
jackifus #2661917 07/16/17 06:14 PM
Joined: Aug 2015
Posts: 115
Full Member
OP Offline
Full Member
Joined: Aug 2015
Posts: 115
Thanks for the responses.

I tried to find this question addressed in earlier threads but didn't find it…

Underlying the question is a feeling of trepidation at the thought of purchasing an MP11 with its close to 4-year-old internals vs a new RD-2000 given the rapid rate of change of electronic components.

And so, even if up to debate, the answer to my question sounds like a "no"

And a selection between these two (for me) would governed by the mechanical feel of the action, the sensibility behind the physical design and layout, physical control surface differences (joystick & sliders) … as well as the acceptability of friction added by an external PC running whichever sound that feels more satisfying than the aging MP11 internals.

And responsiveness can be managed through parameters in pianoteq per se, that have every likelihood of being as satisfying as the Roland that made me say "wow" aloud.

Thanks much. It's all quite helpful.

I'm eager to feel the MP11.

Cheers


Kawai MP11SE | K&M 18950 | Pianoteq Pro (Bleuthner, Steingraeber, Petrof, Bechstein, Steinway B & D, Electric Pianos, K) | Sennheiser HD600 | Sony WH-1000XM3 (using wired) for noise isolation
Re: Internal sounds vs. MIDI responsiveness
jackifus #2661933 07/16/17 07:25 PM
Joined: Aug 2016
Posts: 5,156
G
5000 Post Club Member
Offline
5000 Post Club Member
G
Joined: Aug 2016
Posts: 5,156
Originally Posted by jackifus

I know that latency can be an issue, and can be managed. But beyond that for example, I don't believe there's a reason that a manufacturer must design internal sounds to conform only to the "0-127" velocity granularity that an external MIDI interface allows. (I'm not pretending that my technique is such that I could take advantage of more than that ... I'm using this as an illustration of potential differences between internal and external sounds).


While there's no reason any given DP's internal velocity sensor would need to use the standard 128 MIDI output levels, I've only heard of a few that externally output more (e.g., boards outputting to high-resolution MIDI or perhaps Roland's new Rainlink). I haven't really heard of anyone claiming to be able to notice a difference (though honestly I haven't really looked). Pianoteq supports high resolution MIDI input, so it may be worth searching for comparisons between standard and hi-res input to that software?

Originally Posted by jackifus
Underlying the question is a feeling of trepidation at the thought of purchasing an MP11 with its close to 4-year-old internals vs a new RD-2000 given the rapid rate of change of electronic components.


Interestingly, I have an MP11, and have recently switched to using it to drive a software piano (not Pianoteq though) and have recently sent some time trying out an RD2000. While I could hear something very clean and crisp in the Roland output, it didn't really blow me away. Frankly, neither did the MP11's default tone; I think my first real "wow" moment with it was when driving the software piano, which had a richness and depth I didn't feel in the HW samples (though it's kind of a pain dealing with a computer every time I want to play).

I was honestly left with a fairly lukewarm feeling from the PHA-50 action, which has been really hyped here for the last year or so. IMO it didn't really feel all that different from other Roland actions like Ivory-Feel G and PHA-IV Concert--in short, it's a fine weighted action that leans a bit on the heavy side. Part of it could be that my MP11 feels particularly well-matched to the acoustic grand I play, so that becomes the baseline everything else gets compared to.

Looking forward to hearing your thoughts on the MP11 sound and feel!


Yamaha P-85, P-105, CP50, Kawai MP11 || Kawai NV-10
Re: Internal sounds vs. MIDI responsiveness
jackifus #2661950 07/16/17 08:57 PM
Joined: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,069
B
1000 Post Club Member
Offline
1000 Post Club Member
B
Joined: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,069
This has been discussed before here on PW and elsewhere. IMHO the need to have more than the usual 1 to 127 MIDI levels is pointless. For example, let's imagine one modifies a totally ordinary linear velocity map, but introducing in it one MIDI output value of zero for just one MIDI input value, for example 90 or 5Ah. In other words, if you happen to hit this rather mf precise value, you will hear nothing, as if the hammer wouldn't move on a real piano. I challenge anyone to try to repeatedly hit (let's say three times in a row) such an isolated value on a digital instrument. If nobody can, it's probably that 127 velocity levels are way enough in terms of precision and musical expression. Unless someone happens to be the reincarnation of Horowitz.

:-)

Re: Internal sounds vs. MIDI responsiveness
jackifus #2661955 07/16/17 09:16 PM
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 12,958
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
Offline
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 12,958
I agree. MIDI 128 is enough. Finer increments would defy the human ability to perceive.

But there are those who believe that more is better, even when it's not. (They make great customers!)

Re: Internal sounds vs. MIDI responsiveness
Bosendorff #2661998 07/17/17 01:07 AM
Joined: Aug 2016
Posts: 5,156
G
5000 Post Club Member
Offline
5000 Post Club Member
G
Joined: Aug 2016
Posts: 5,156
Originally Posted by Bosendorff
I challenge anyone to try to repeatedly hit (let's say three times in a row) such an isolated value on a digital instrument. If nobody can, it's probably that 127 velocity levels are way enough in terms of precision and musical expression. Unless someone happens to be the reincarnation of Horowitz.

:-)


This keeps coming up, but I'd suggest the real question isn't whether a specific MIDI value can be reproduced at will. I'd even contend that Horowitz (or anyone else, really) has never been able to exactly reproduce any note he has played, ever. It's just a question of how many decimal points of precision you care to go out.

The question is really whether you can hear (or feel, or whatever) the difference between value 89 and 90, versus something like 89.x and 90, assuming that same difference can be heard on an acoustic. The answer may very well be no. But if yes, it doesn't mean the pianist intended to precisely play 89.x and that they do it every single time they play that piece, only that they happened to hit that value and it makes a difference that is noticeable on some level by the listener (as it allegedly would on an acoustic).


Yamaha P-85, P-105, CP50, Kawai MP11 || Kawai NV-10
Re: Internal sounds vs. MIDI responsiveness
MacMacMac #2662105 07/17/17 11:30 AM
Joined: Jul 2012
Posts: 8,678
8000 Post Club Member
Offline
8000 Post Club Member
Joined: Jul 2012
Posts: 8,678
Originally Posted by MacMacMac
I agree. MIDI 128 is enough. Finer increments would defy the human ability to perceive.

But there are those who believe that more is better, even when it's not. (They make great customers!)


I, and Yamaha,amongst others, were once firmly of the opinion that 32 note polyphony was more than enough. Seems like it's only me who thinks this now . . . .


"I am not a man. I am a free number"

"[Linked Image]"
Re: Internal sounds vs. MIDI responsiveness
jackifus #2662132 07/17/17 12:56 PM
Joined: Oct 2013
Posts: 2,962
2000 Post Club Member
Online Content
2000 Post Club Member
Joined: Oct 2013
Posts: 2,962
When trying to play multiple notes with the same velocity, I get a 5 unit dispersion (-2/+2 or more, I don't remember). Then the 127 MIDI scale is enough for me. If we want some randomness when 2 same velocity notes are pressed, we can use a round robin virtual piano.

Last edited by Frédéric L; 07/17/17 12:56 PM.

Yamaha CLP150, Bechstein Digital Grand, Garritan CFX, Ivory II pianos, Galaxy pianos, EWQL Pianos, Native-Instrument The Definitive Piano Collection, Soniccouture Hammersmith, Truekeys, Pianoteq
Re: Internal sounds vs. MIDI responsiveness
jackifus #2662172 07/17/17 03:40 PM
Joined: Jul 2014
Posts: 2,198
2000 Post Club Member
Offline
2000 Post Club Member
Joined: Jul 2014
Posts: 2,198
The main question is: How precise are the sensors? I don't think they really can differentiate 127 values. At most a few dozens.

High precision MIDI is mostly useful for MIDI touch curve adjustments without losing precision. You might decide you want to play some virtual instrument between velocity 55 and 65 only without being restricted to just 10 steps. With 7 bit MIDI you have to map velocities 55 to 65 to 1 to 127 inside the instrument itself. With everything 14 bit MIDI capable you can simply adjust the MIDI controller or map it elsewhere on the MIDI bus, because you have still hundreds of steps between MIDI velocities 55 and 65.


Richwood RD-17C-CE | LaMancha Rubi CM-N | Yamaha P-515
Re: Internal sounds vs. MIDI responsiveness
JoeT #2662179 07/17/17 04:06 PM
Joined: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,468
P
4000 Post Club Member
Offline
4000 Post Club Member
P
Joined: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,468
Originally Posted by JoeT
The main question is: How precise are the sensors? I don't think they really can differentiate 127 values. At most a few dozens.

High precision MIDI is mostly useful for MIDI touch curve adjustments without losing precision. You might decide you want to play some virtual instrument between velocity 55 and 65 only without being restricted to just 10 steps. With 7 bit MIDI you have to map velocities 55 to 65 to 1 to 127 inside the instrument itself. With everything 14 bit MIDI capable you can simply adjust the MIDI controller or map it elsewhere on the MIDI bus, because you have still hundreds of steps between MIDI velocities 55 and 65.


I am trying to understand what value to the musician this increase in velocity resolution would have.

My acoustic grand has a dynamic range of about 50dB. Mapping that 50dB range into 127 steps (allowing 0 as silence) is a resolution better than 0.5dB per step, a change far finer than any human ear is capable of discerning, or any human pianist is capable of consistently reproducing.

edit: In case you are wondering how I know my AP's dynamic range, it is because I check my mic positions near the piano when recording and can achieve, at maximum while beating the sh*t out of the piano, 103dBSPL measured 2cm from the rim at the curve with the lid on half stick. The softest note playable with consistancy is at 53dBSPL. When fed to my DAW I set this to -15dBFS and -65dBFS.

Last edited by prout; 07/17/17 04:16 PM.
Re: Internal sounds vs. MIDI responsiveness
Frédéric L #2662180 07/17/17 04:07 PM
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 5,753
A
5000 Post Club Member
Offline
5000 Post Club Member
A
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 5,753
Originally Posted by Frédéric L
When trying to play multiple notes with the same velocity, I get a 5 unit dispersion (-2/+2 or more, I don't remember).


I agree with Gombessa that the ability to reproduce a velocity at will has nothing to do with determining the desirable limits of velocity sensing.

If you repeatedly aim for velocity 62 and get 60-64 (which would be darn good, IMO!), and aiming for 63 gets you 61-65, and aiming for 64 gets you 62-66, then they are generating three distinctly different sets of results, even if your are only getting within 2 of your target.

And you might not be able to exactly duplicate each velocity within a crescendo, but that doesn't make them unimportant to the effect.

That said, I still think 127 values is probably enough. If each value represented a .5 decibel volume difference, the difference between any two adjacent values would essentially be inaudible, and you'd still have a 64 dB dynamic range from your quietest note to your loudest note, which seems like more than enough.
(((There are some threads about this at
http://forum.pianoworld.com/ubbthreads.php/topics/2392952
and
http://forum.pianoworld.com/ubbthreads.php/topics/1999063
)))

But then I think the question further goes to mapping various velocities to the various levels, and that to me is where it gets perhaps more complicated than merely "having enough" to account for audible differences. For example, for response to feel natural, you might actually need some difference of force (velocity) to NOT be sufficient to create an audible difference, and to me, that's what makes it more complicated to determine how many levels of force you need to sense. Maybe you need more gradations within a certain range of force, and fewer gradations within another.

In a related conversation a while back, we talked about the possibility of using a controller like a Casio PX5S (capable of sending hi-resolution MIDI beyond 127) with Pianoteq (capable of receiving same), and turning the hi-res sensing of Pianoteq on and off (which I think is possible), and seeing if any players could reliably tell whether the hi-res sensing was on or off, whether any setting felt more expressive or accurate to their playing. I don't know that anyone tried it, though. Still it's awfully hard to prove a negative. Even if no one reported being able to tell the difference, it doesn't mean that it's impossible that someone else could, or could with some other controller or software.

It is largely academic, though, as even IF this difference exists, it would seem to be quite subtle at best. I don't think we are yet close enough to "perfection" in key feel, sound generation, and sound reproduction for *this* to be the missing "a-ha!" element. ;-)

Re: Internal sounds vs. MIDI responsiveness
prout #2662195 07/17/17 05:27 PM
Joined: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,069
B
1000 Post Club Member
Offline
1000 Post Club Member
B
Joined: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,069
Originally Posted by prout
Mapping that 50dB range into 127 steps (allowing 0 as silence) is a resolution better than 0.5dB per step, a change far finer than any human ear is capable of discerning, or any human pianist is capable of consistently reproducing.

Exactly. Just like it's impossible for human eyes to read what is written on a tiny piece of paper at a 100 feet distance.

I have written a special Excel sheet with macros which, when used with a well-known freeware, enables one to create any MIDI velocity curve (yes, within the "horrible limitations" of the 0-127 values). One can later easily use this as a simple external data mapping, as long as the instrument has MIDI IN and OUT and that a computer is available nearby. This enables one to accommodate for anything unwanted on stock velocity curves/maps on digital instruments (if they don't offer user-programmable ones) and also create custom ones.

In other words, supposing that the user likes the feel of a given keyboard and its sounds (and that both are at least decently made and balanced), when it comes to "what's in between" incorrect velocity maps are much more likely to cause unsatisfactory results for a user playing a DP or synth, compared to the MIDI 1.0 7-bit range of values.

Re: Internal sounds vs. MIDI responsiveness
anotherscott #2662199 07/17/17 05:37 PM
Joined: Jul 2014
Posts: 2,198
2000 Post Club Member
Offline
2000 Post Club Member
Joined: Jul 2014
Posts: 2,198
Originally Posted by anotherscott
In a related conversation a while back, we talked about the possibility of using a controller like a Casio PX5S (capable of sending hi-resolution MIDI beyond 127) with Pianoteq (capable of receiving same), and turning the hi-res sensing of Pianoteq on and off (which I think is possible), and seeing if any players could reliably tell whether the hi-res sensing was on or off, whether any setting felt more expressive or accurate to their playing. I don't know that anyone tried it, though. Still it's awfully hard to prove a negative. Even if no one reported being able to tell the difference, it doesn't mean that it's impossible that someone else could, or could with some other controller or software.

The point of high-resolution MIDI is to not have to adjust the velocity curve inside Pianoteq (or any other of maybe dozens of virtual instruments), but have the ability to do the mapping elsewhere instead. When working with limited ranges (for example mapping input velocity 20-70 to 1-127), you get very big steps without high resolution and you can hear that.


Richwood RD-17C-CE | LaMancha Rubi CM-N | Yamaha P-515
Re: Internal sounds vs. MIDI responsiveness
jackifus #2662203 07/17/17 06:01 PM
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 5,753
A
5000 Post Club Member
Offline
5000 Post Club Member
A
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 5,753
Good point, JoeT, which also kind of picks up from where I said "maybe you need more gradations within a certain range of force, and fewer gradations within another." By having more than 127 total values to work with, you can also get more finesse within a specific range, without having very little available elsewhere. An example of that which many people may have experiences with is when they change a piano's default velocity curve, say, from normal to hard. They may get the better response they want on one end, but find a compromised lack of finesse at the other. Essentially, they are "throwing away" some of the 127 values they are starting with, and that could be part of the issue.

Page 1 of 3 1 2 3

Moderated by  Piano World 

Link Copied to Clipboard
What's Hot!!
News from the Piano World
100,000!
---------------------
NEW! Sell Your Piano on our world famous Piano Forums!
---------------------
Posting Pictures on the Forums
-------------------
Forums RULES & HELP
-------------------
ADVERTISE on Piano World
(ad)
Pianoteq
Steinway Spiro Layering
(ad)
PianoDisc

PianoDisc
(ad)
Piano Life Saver - Dampp Chaser
Dampp Chaser Piano Life Saver
(ad)
Mason & Hamlin Pianos
New Topics - Multiple Forums
New to playing.
by JennyBunnyBean - 01/20/21 12:35 PM
Question about Fandrich epoxy soundboard repair
by ambrozy - 01/20/21 11:41 AM
Cfx concert grand vst
by Dharma_ - 01/20/21 11:14 AM
Pianoteq 7 vs.
by Chordo24 - 01/20/21 10:44 AM
Download Sheet Music
Virtual Sheet Music - Classical Sheet Music Downloads
Forum Statistics
Forums42
Topics204,411
Posts3,049,351
Members100,146
Most Online15,252
Mar 21st, 2010
Please Support Our Advertisers


Faust Harrison 100+ Steinways

Dampp Chaser Piano Life Saver

 Best of Piano Buyer

PianoTeq Bechstein
Visit our online store for gifts for music lovers

Virtual Sheet Music - Classical Sheet Music Downloads



 
Help keep the forums up and running with a donation, any amount is appreciated!
Or by becoming a Subscribing member! Thank-you.
Donate   Subscribe
 
Our Piano Related Classified Ads
| Dealers | Tuners | Lessons | Movers | Restorations | Pianos For Sale | Sell Your Piano |

Advertise on Piano World
| Subscribe | Piano World | PianoSupplies.com | Advertise on Piano World |
| |Contact | Privacy | Legal | About Us | Site Map | Free Newsletter |


© copyright 1997 - 2021 Piano World ® all rights reserved
No part of this site may be reproduced without prior written permission
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.4